Skip to main content

View Diary: Bartlett:  Teabaggers Totally Ignorant About Taxes (276 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't know of anybody -- not even the right (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pinecone, coffejoe

    wingers -- who argue that we should not pay ANY taxes.  

    The right wingers are fine with paying taxes for things like national security, infrastructure, public parks (which they see as part of infrastructure), police protection.  The kinds of things that the private market cannot do.  

    They think, however, that the federal government should not do much more than that.  They do not think that the federal government should be in the business of providing services and subsidies to people who do not have as many resource themselves.  They think that private charities should do that.  That's do not want to pay taxes to provide those things.  

    •  Yes, because charities always make sure to do the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      skohayes

      one essential thing for the poor and downtrodden that the government safety net never does:

      Remind the peons of their place.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 07:22:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I didn't say that view was correct, of course (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pinecone

        it's simply a different philosophical view over what government is for.  

        My point was that arguments that "right wingers don't want to pay taxes for infrastructure, police, national security and the defense" is just wrong.  They do want to pay taxes for that.  Just not for a whole lot more.  

        •  I haven't seen a single sign from their rallies (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z, Pinecone, bushondrugs

          claiming they are OK with paying taxes for ANYTHING.

          As a matter of fact, I think these people think the war in Iraq was free.

          •  There are, of course, fringe wackos in (0+ / 0-)

            every movement.  But if you actually TALK to the rational conservatives or libertarians (and there are a lot of them out there -- they are doctors, lawyers, CPA's, engineers, small business owners, etc.) that is what they will tell you. I work with a lot of them in my law firm, and I have right wing Christian Conservative relatives in California -- who are part of a very large similar group (think Rick Warren).  That is exactly their mantra.  The federal government should be only involved in a small number of things that private individuals and entities cannot do, and it should leave charity to private inidividuals and organizations.    

      •  they only take care of the "worthy" people (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z, Pinecone, Dar Nirron

        for example, the Catholic Church has withdrawm donations to a homeless shelter in Maine because the organization supported the gay marriage bill.
        And withdrew their donations to various orgs in DC because they legalized gay marriage.

        Hope is the thing with feathers That perches in the soul, And sings the tune--without the words, And never stops at all. -Emily Dickinson

        by skohayes on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 07:52:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is true, to an extent (0+ / 0-)

          they are much, much more likely to think that people who make bad choices in life should have to live with the consequences of those choices.  They are much more likely to be willing to help the disabled, because they see that as something beyond their control, than they are willing to help someone who dropped out of high school, because they see that as a personal choice.  (For those people, they are more willing to provide free schooling than a subsidy.)  That's what I hear from them.  

          Actually, the philosophical reason they think charity should be left to the individual is because, in their words, "It's my money.  I earned it. If it's charity, I ought to be able to decide who I give it to."

    •  But what they fail to understand is the national (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z, Pinecone, skohayes, bushondrugs

      security eats up a big portion of taxes. Heck, we pay as much for our national security as the rest of the world combined.

      These people are OK with a big "socialistic" government as long as it spend on things THEY approve of.

      With that in mind, how the heck are they ANY different than progressives. Just like the tea baggers we also want a big government. The only difference is how we spend it.

      In other words, to spend for the excessive national security, they want high taxes just like the rest of us.

      •  I'm sick of our socialized wars. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z, Pinecone

        I am looking forward to Obama getting us out of Iraq.

        A Wall Street "bonus" should not be more than what my house is currently worth.

        by bushondrugs on Sat Mar 27, 2010 at 07:43:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, not really (0+ / 0-)

        for FY 2009, Federal Defense Spending was about 23% of overall federal spending.  SS and Medicare combined was about 39%.  

        But I agree that people on the right and on the left do not want to pay taxes for things that they do not think the federal government should be doing.  It's just that those on the right have different notions of what the federal government should be doing than those on the left.  

        •  Two points. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LeighAnn

          First - you had to combine SS and Medicare to get a number bigger than defense.

          Second - the actual claim was that we spent more on defense than the rest of the world combined.  I don't know if that is true or not, but that was the actual statement made.

          •  My point is that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Pinecone

            defense is less than a quarter of the budget.  So, if you reduced the federal government to only those things the right wingers or libertarians thought the federal government should be doing (like defense and infrastructure), then yes, we'd all pay a lot less in taxes.  

            •  TBU .... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              be the change you seek

              A phrase I learned from reading "Switch" - a book about successful change initiatives.

              TBU = True But Useless

              In this case, yes - you are right, but the odds of any elected federal government eliminating Social Security, Medicare, and refusing to pay interest is so unlikely that the conclusion is "True But Useless."  Except as it might help us understand how bizarre their thinking really is.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site